Being a cranky bastard, I thought I'd air out a few silly opinions related to EDH, and Magic on the whole. Heeeere goes.

#1 Dig Through Time Banned on MTGO CMDR

What is it with Wizards' hate-boner for Dig Through Time? This delightful little Super Impulse dug it's way into my heart during my foray into Khans standard- and it's been getting the banhammer alongside it's outright busted big brother Treasure Cruise everytime WotC remembers that Cruise is a mistake. But Dig? Dig is subject to the variance of the game, Dig's delve cost matters, and it always eats up 2 U sources or counters on the likes of Saprazzan Skerry. When Dig got banned in Modern, I felt it was necessary to be charitable towards Wizards, in that I thought it was probably a temporary fixture to make sure that the playerbase didn't just pop Digs in where they had Cruises. I was wrong. Now, a couple of years have passed- and Dig has been taken out for the 4th time alongside Cruise- and I'm just wondering if the people making these decisions even read the card? D: Can't we give Dig a chance?

#2 Ermahgerd EDHREC is Ruining Commander!!1!one!

Where is the substance to this article? Does the author know that EDHREC is sourced from TappedOut? Really doubt it after a read. This seems like clickbait for CommanderDamageControl.com- and why not? They probably deserve a few clicks.

My umbrage here is more with the EDH community (and Magic Community at large) for acting like this isn't a non-issue. Before EDHREC, people used YouTube videos, MTGSalvation posts, and posts on this forum to look for guidance in deckbuilding- and then as TappedOut became more refined, it became the place to go when trying to crack the nut that is "Building a solid EDH deck". So, what has changed? Compiled and categorized information? There are many websites that have been doing that for MtG since the internet eruption thing just kindof happened. If I'm being to-the-point with it; sourcing, compiling, and categorizing information is human nature at this point- and the resistance to it, is possibly the biggest flag for someone wanting to pretend to be an Old Fogey.

But friends, back when I was a young'n (back when Math Blaster was the coolest way to pretend that you were learning something and eat up time in the school day- and when you beat the game, the teacher would let you play Sim City;) We became acquainted with these odd things called "Encyclopedias"- where we had to learn to operate an "Index" to locate categorized bits of information densely dispersed over several thousand page-count lap-sores. It sucked. Now we have Wikipedia

(and the eminently more entertaining Encyclopedia Dramatica.) Don't google it kids, it's a black hole of meaningless garbage lovingly crafted by the underbelly of you-know-which-anonymous-imageboards

Did encyclopedias make music or art worse? Did issues of Beckett or The Duelist make MtG "homogenous"? No. A profits-first music industry that alienated it's consumers homogenized music. Pretentious sociopolitical movements "ruined" a generation of art. But things got better- and much like the lap-torture of Encyclopedia Britanica 15th Edition, the internet made it better. EDHREC makes EDH more accessible and easier to digest for people who are interested in, but daunted by the format.

#3 The "Casual/Competitive Spectrum"While the model of a "spectrum" for how competitive an EDH player is, doesn't necessarily both me; I certainly feel like there are misconceptions surrounding it.

I. Power ≠ CompetitivePretty straight forward. I (regrettably) played in a few pod-based EDH tourneys with extended banlists. Don't do it kids. But the most white-knuckle, high skill Magic I've played has also been in extended-banlist EDH with friends who wanted to stop playing actual tournaments (with 60 card decks and tournament structure that matters.) Often with a judge program member, this can be a fun way to tackle the format at a local level. I don't recommend tourneys per se, but with bragging rights written on an LGS dry-erase board or something similar (totally not gambling,) it's a good way to flex the Magic muscles.

II. Revising Your Social ContractIf you do agree to try playing EDH with a competitive twist, there simply is not "the line" to judge what's cool, and what isn't. You're building the decks with the intention of taking out 3 other players. Extra turns, mana denial- it's all there, all the way. Often such strategies are suboptimal, but you have to be prepared for them. And oh sweet mercy, the combo decks.

To me, this is what really makes "The Lab Maniacs", an interesting lot to observe. Their flavor of competitive is competitive, not just "high power", or "trying to play like a jackass to intentionally make the table feel bad" competitive- and their stated social contract reflects that.

III. Playing To Win... Is Just Playing MtG

So, let's not beat around the bush with this one. If you aren't playing and making an attempt to win in some roundabout fashion, you're probably just trying to get a rise out of the other players. I've stated it a few other times on this forum, but the best advice I've been given about playing EDH is to size up your playgroup and build to restrain yourself as much as necessary. Subjectively, this has been one of funnest things about Commander. It isn't exactly entertainment value to force yourself into deliberate misplays, or for your opponent to know that you're deliberately making misplays to keep the game interesting. But if your group cannot handle a particularly spikey build, or have themselves eschewed their spikey builds, try crafting decks with specific types of restraints that your playgroup can agree to- so that you can find the right kind of casual for that group.

Peace guys V..

_________________

niheloim wrote:

Wall of Chat. 2UCreature- Wall

DefenderWall of chat exceeds at using a lot of words to mischaracterize opposing view points.

Build casual, play competitive. A very simplified version of your last point but one which has stuck with me for a long time. I think that once you put it in your deck you should be prepared to use it to gain the strongest advantage you can.

I may not be willing to put the blue or green praetors in a deck, but I have no problems reanimating one. If you go for a wheel effect I'm going to cast a mass bounce spell if I can.

The only exception I have personally for that is using my targeted LD on the mana screwed player. The spikiest play is to use decimateto take out one of the lands of the player on 2 mana, but unless that person's deck is known to be very powerful I probably wont do that.

#4 The Sultai Master RaceWoah, woah Deg, what's this all about?Well, John Strawman- Have you ever found yourself posting about Commander on a certain facebook group, or in a youtube comment (yes, that monstrosity still exists,) where someone tries to play the "1up Game", and eventually pushes the conversation into how much better B, U, and G are in EDH than W and R, totally void of context? It's sortof stupid-headed, poorly based, and mostly pointless.

So, what's the deal? Well, generally I try to discourage mono colored EDH decks, but it is no secret that Mono W in particular can be brutally difficult to build, tune and pilot. It's also no secret that Boros is the most difficult 2c combination to build in tune- but that isn't an inherent power differential. The simple fact, is that White is almost outright starved on drawpower, and is forced to generate most of it's CA through 2f1ing an opponent into dust- which is why UW, BW and GW have many potent builds. White cards have for most of Magic's history been many of the strongest blow-by-blow, and with an extra color- the weakness of having to rely on artifact draw, or engines as tricky as Sage's Reverie, Three Dreams, Mentor of the Meek, Bygone Bishop, Kor Spiritdancer, Mesa Enchantress, Sram, Senior Edificer, Inheritance, Martyr's Cry, or Pursuit of Knowledge is offset enough to be reliable. W has some of the strongest recursion available, but if you can't crack into the deck to sculpt draws, or restore lost steam- it can leave you far to reliant on that recursion, or make the value available unsatisfactory. But hey, some people can work it, perhaps even the most tuned Mono W decks aren't "competitive", but if the power-level fits your meta (IE, mana isn't always at it's fastest, combos to block before turn 6 are uncommon, mana denial is acceptable, soft lockdowns are acceptable.)

What about Mono R? Mono R usually relies on wheels and effects that "simulate" CA in ways that can lead to actual CA. Mono R EDH has a plethora of Generals that explicitly perform the role of simulating CA, or are high-impact in their own right to take advantage of hand disruption caused by wheels.

So, Boros shouldn't have a problem then, right? There are wheels, both W and R's recursion access, and the shared artifact support. However, that isn't necessarily true. Boros decks have a harder time with wheels, because in order to get CA, W wants to establish engines- where a mono R deck would be able to cash out as much of it's hand as possible to fire off the wheel. What I've found, is that Boros is mostly pigeonholed into Equipment artifacts, and even though Sunforger, Skullclamp, Sword of Fire and Ice, Sword of Light and Shadow, Mask of Memory all pay for themselves admirably- there is a definite issue with dovetailing all of this with wheels and engines effectively. Further, outside of Brion Stoutarm and Depala, Pilot Exemplar- RW generals lack the simulated CA building effects that is the lifeblood of keeping these decks gassed. Some games, you just won't get that Outpost Siege online, so you'll be pushed into combat to get value from equipment, but your opponents will be able to deny you for atleast enough turns to invalidate it.

But, it isn't impossible per se, just much more difficult than splashing B, U, or G for a few draw draw spells/effects to pick up the slack. What gets my goat though, is once tuned and properly piloted, it's entirely possible for a Boros deck to win a game, even if a general like Adriana, Captain of the Guard is especially combat focused, and that seems too forward of a gameplan. It might not be my cup of tea per se, but determining the success or failure probability in a game by the color identity of the General tends to get me a little more than furious, since by-in-large, the power differences aren't particularly great margins.

It's okay, friends. We can play our Plains and Mountains (a third splash color certainly doesn't hurt though!)- Atraxa is popular, but can be fought. Take care folks; happy spellslinging V..

_________________

niheloim wrote:

Wall of Chat. 2UCreature- Wall

DefenderWall of chat exceeds at using a lot of words to mischaracterize opposing view points.

Now, why would the world's largest MtG retailer be selling a product for $60 USD over it's MSRP, during the week of it's release? The answer, unfortunately sucks- Star City drives the market by always having product, and they don't mean to sell this product, but instead capitalize on it's status as a premium product, and to optimize their position in the scarcity that will exist in 6 months.

Isn't that anti-consumer? I mean, really- everyone knows that Star City's single prices are little more, but their shipping, customer service, frequent sales, and constant availability is what you're really paying for. But this is speculatory, possibly predatory behavior to game the market- similar to what happened recently with Breed Lethality (the Atraxa CMDR 16 set.)

While I can't say for sure that I feel Wizards should do something about it, I do have a legitimate worry that this is damaging to the brand- and as Commander players on this forum, we're the most adversely effected, because every year, Wizards is trying to put a high MSRP product into our hands- and any interference in that process makes it far more disagreeable (how much audience is lost, because they want the Atraxa precon, but aren't willing to pay 70USD for it?) I don't even mean to turn this into a rant about taking the piss at Star City- my experiences at their tournament venues have been great, I've ordered singles from them because of their availability of cards in foreign languages, sales, and premium content. However, something I learned by reading the articles written by Ben Bleiweiss, is that he's only interested in putting product into player hands when he can pull a margin of profit consistent with everything else Star City Games sells- but in this instance we aren't actually buying services.

This is a product with an MSRP, not singles. It's new, it hasn't become rare yet, it's desired by some amount of the community. But SCG doesn't want your money now, or to satisfy the demand of a product, they're trying to control the availability of the product by having their stock jog in place. Unlike boxes, the extra margins aren't suppressed by a great deal of competition- SCG has 50 of these things (many retailers only get 5.) That's the rub of it though. Brick and Mortars are going to try to sell theirs, and excite their playerbases, and as they disappear from B&Ms and online stores- SCG will naturally go from just having the largest stock of them, to having the product completely cornered.

Should SCG and other large online retailers be able to do this for products like Commander or the Anthology series? Even if it means another Breed Lethality or Mind Seize?

EDIT: Holy mother of run-on sentences, Batman! I apologize to anyone reading, for the absolute agony of the sentence structure here. This was just a very raw tangent. A friend of mine ran a brick and mortar, and I would help out where I could- so I find things like this unsettling.

_________________

niheloim wrote:

Wall of Chat. 2UCreature- Wall

DefenderWall of chat exceeds at using a lot of words to mischaracterize opposing view points.

First - I generally enjoy reading your rants. Sometimes you point me at things that I didn't know where things until I read your rant

For this last one ...

Quote:

Brick and Mortars are going to try to sell theirs, and excite their playerbases, and as they disappear from B&Ms and online stores- SCG will naturally go from just having the largest stock of them, to having the product completely cornered.

Isn't that a fair play though? I'm assuming B&M will sell for MSRP - Then, as they get sold, the scarcity will increase, thus you reach a balance point between scarcity & SCG Price. They just have to be willing to hold onto their stock and not sell it until the B&M stores sell theirs.

If I were a store owner - I dunno if I'd do that (why "hold on" to stock, why not sell it and make room for other stock?) But -- isn't that their choice?

As a consumer - the problem for me would be if the B&M also increase their price simply because SCG has a higher price. And with the limited run - it's hard to let the price balance out and reach a natural equilibrium. So for me - the problem is the WotC limited printing of stuff (this goes for Modern/Eternal Masters as well).

While I can't say for sure that I feel Wizards should do something about it, I do have a legitimate worry that this is damaging to the brand.

When vendors mark up from MSRP for sealed pre-con product on pre-order or within 6 months of release (for example - maybe 9-12 months), I feel like WotC should reduce the amount of product they receive on future releases for an amount of time. Larger quantities should be going to the venues abiding by the MSRP, not the venues gouging players "just because." WotC said they stay out of secondary market, but this is primary markets affected by secondary market practices.

Should SCG and other large online retailers be able to do this for products like Commander or the Anthology series?

Should they be able to sell you boosters at under MSRP? What is the difference?

Note that MSRP is a recommendation, and Wizards has no ability to enforce it?

I don't think this is the same. While the MSRP is a suggestion, and is always subject to a retailer's adjustment, this sort of market behavior pushes a rate of inaccessibility that seeks to browbeat any prospective buyers. It's artificially drying up the market prematurely. Most people looking forward to it were already prepared to pay $150-160 USD for the product, but the sheer size of the markup makes it clear that Star City's strategy is to artificially dry the well. I just find it curious that this hasn't been taken up as a branding issue related to limited print runs. The only thing Wizards reasonably could do is further saturate the market at the B&M level to push more competition on these sort of products- and while I'm not convinced that I know one way or another if that should be done; these sort of practices by online retailers calls it into question at every level.

Carthain wrote:

First - I generally enjoy reading your rants. Sometimes you point me at things that I didn't know where things until I read your rant

Thanks To be honest, I'm just trying to use this thread as an outlet for my over-opinionated flusters, so that I can avoid derailing active threads (which is sometimes way too easy here.)

Carthain wrote:

Isn't that a fair play though? I'm assuming B&M will sell for MSRP - Then, as they get sold, the scarcity will increase, thus you reach a balance point between scarcity & SCG Price. They just have to be willing to hold onto their stock and not sell it until the B&M stores sell theirs.

If I were a store owner - I dunno if I'd do that (why "hold on" to stock, why not sell it and make room for other stock?) But -- isn't that their choice?

As a consumer - the problem for me would be if the B&M also increase their price simply because SCG has a higher price. And with the limited run - it's hard to let the price balance out and reach a natural equilibrium. So for me - the problem is the WotC limited printing of stuff (this goes for Modern/Eternal Masters as well).

Well, I may have been spoiled by growing up near one of the larger B&Ms on Florida's nature coast (which was open for 20+ years.) My issue here isn't whether or not, a retailer should be able to or not able to do what they please (my position is a far cry from anti-capitalism.) But as a practice, I feel that this dances on a fine line of exploitation that reflects poorly to many consumers on MtG's brand.

Typically B&Ms thrive on the boost from these special products to help them get through the Summer rut- and the Commander product line is one of Magic's most successful decisions. I'm not sure recourse in this particular scenario is warranted through Wizard's printing policy; but the trend is disturbingly anti-consumer. At some point, it may be necessary to demand further supply available at the street level, to ensure that the product has a long enough lifespan before becoming a purely collector's item to also satiate the consumer demand post-release without the insane "mad dash" that is associated with the first line of Commander precons, Mind Seize, and now Breed Lethality. Rather, Wizards should want to balance the necessity of hype and demand, with a larger window of accessibility on these products- so that patrons who get payed bi-weekly, or monthly, (and may have to put it off for real-world expenses.) aren't punished nearly as hard for wanting to get these a month, 2 months, or at the end of the quarter after release.

This sort of product, much like old boosters, will inevitably become a super-premium, collectors piece. For some time after it's initial release, however; it does actually serve a massive utilitarian service to the Magic playing community, and not giving large online retailers adequate competition is a net loss for the game's foundation (it's players.)

-@TreamayneThat's more radical than I was thinking, but I certainly wouldn't write that off!

_________________

niheloim wrote:

Wall of Chat. 2UCreature- Wall

DefenderWall of chat exceeds at using a lot of words to mischaracterize opposing view points.

At some point, it may be necessary to demand further supply available at the street level, to ensure that the product has a long enough lifespan before becoming a purely collector's item to also satiate the consumer demand post-release without the insane "mad dash" that is associated with the first line of Commander precons, Mind Seize, and now Breed Lethality.

As a consumer - the problem for me would be if the B&M also increase their price simply because SCG has a higher price.

Quote:

That's what I saw in Savannah. The B&M would match SCG pricing then say it's cheaper because "no shipping charge." The only venue for MSRP product was Walmart and Target, if you got there the day it was stocked (one B&M would also buy MSRP from Walmart to stock their shelf above MSRP and have only local stock around).

Mr Degradation wrote:

-@TreamayneThat's more radical than I was thinking, but I certainly wouldn't write that off!

It is extreme, but it's also the only point in the process I can think of that WotC does control that could encourage fair pricing at the primary market level. Since they already (tmk) source quantity based on throughput (larger stores that sell more get more product to sell) then they could balance that algorithm with reduction for abusing a primary selling policy.

I don't think this is the same. While the MSRP is a suggestion, and is always subject to a retailer's adjustment, this sort of market behavior pushes a rate of inaccessibility that seeks to browbeat any prospective buyers. It's artificially drying up the market prematurely.

This is just arguing that Magic shouldn't be a collectable. A little bit of scarcity is what keeps the secondary market going and, while they don't work with it directly, a healthy secondary market is essential to the longevity of Magic.

Scarce products are also an opportunity for a local game store to make a bit of extra profit. As keeping local game stores afloat is also an essential part of the long-term Magic plan, it's win-win for Wizards.

Also, you can't be both "inaccessible" and "browbeat prospective buyers". If buyers are browbeaten, it isn't inaccessible (and the prices, presumably, will lower). You can certainly argue that *some* buyers will be priced out by the short supply, but this is being sold as a collectable, not something that everyone should be able to have. Lots of other Magic product is designed for the mass market.

I don't think this is the same. While the MSRP is a suggestion, and is always subject to a retailer's adjustment, this sort of market behavior pushes a rate of inaccessibility that seeks to browbeat any prospective buyers. It's artificially drying up the market prematurely.

This is just arguing that Magic shouldn't be a collectable. A little bit of scarcity is what keeps the secondary market going and, while they don't work with it directly, a healthy secondary market is essential to the longevity of Magic.

Scarce products are also an opportunity for a local game store to make a bit of extra profit. As keeping local game stores afloat is also an essential part of the long-term Magic plan, it's win-win for Wizards.

Also, you can't be both "inaccessible" and "browbeat prospective buyers". If buyers are browbeaten, it isn't inaccessible (and the prices, presumably, will lower). You can certainly argue that *some* buyers will be priced out by the short supply, but this is being sold as a collectable, not something that everyone should be able to have. Lots of other Magic product is designed for the mass market.

I'm not entirely sure what point it is that you're trying to make. "Browbeat" is colorful language, because I don't want to describe what I consider to be a reputable dealer as "gouging", (obviously, actual browbeating is illegal.) What I'm presenting an argument for, isn't an argument against the secondary market at all, or some kind of draconian enforcement of MSRP.

What I'm getting at, is that Magic products have a lifespan, in which they are accessible to whoever in the public has been hyped up to get them. With that in mind, Star City has set an unreasonable pricepoint for the collectible product in a naked attempt to corner the secondary market on it- because they have a high amount of access to it. We've seen them, in particular do this before- and it's a bothersome trend that I feel is probably emergent from their business policy and Wizard's own policies meeting in an unfortunate place.

In my experience in retail, this model is based on a "limited time offer", which leads to being a collectible amassing value over a period of time, (this usually involves an intended period of it being most available.) At every B&M that I attended, this particular type of product is hyped, and purchased/split up by members of the LGS- and is especially useful because it helps mitigate seasonal losses. Distributors are only usually able to give smaller stores between 3 and 5 of these (unlike with BFZ, Khans, or other chase sets which were only time sensitive.) After that initial supply dries up, online retailers become the primary source of these. Thus, anyone who has to put it off for the next month with either skip the product outright because of the prices, o be charged steeply- giving this product a lifespan cut shorter by the secondary market forces.

And that gets my goat. That's all. Maybe it's a stupid point of view to express- but as a player who likes to bolster my collection occasionally with these sorts of products, that sort of exploitation feels like the secondary market taking a stab at the playerbase (the people who make a secondary market possible.)

_________________

niheloim wrote:

Wall of Chat. 2UCreature- Wall

DefenderWall of chat exceeds at using a lot of words to mischaracterize opposing view points.

It sounds like Star City Games is trying to do what any cutthroat retail seller would love to do: 'Invest' in buying out a commodity and then holding on to it to make sure they get significantly more profit in the long run. I don't know how I would describe my opinion of it, but I'll try to explain it.

They're selling a collectible, so everyone knows it's going to get rarer and more valuable as time passes. By buying more of it, they ensure that they have it available for a longer amount of time, ensuring people come back to them instead of other sellers. It's a double edged sword: yes, they're ensuring it's available, which is important to a lot of people, but by doing so they're making it's price go up earlier and possibly faster then it would otherwise.

I stopped going to an actual card shop years ago when I found I could buy exactly what I wanted online. My play group is quite literally a 'kitchen table' group, and the rest of my group doesn't run 'new' ideas, they just keep running the same strategy all the time, and I've discovered my Zedruu deck shuts all that down. Same three of us every night. I don't remember what it's like to go to an actual card shop, probably because the secondary market is just....easier to deal with then driving out somewhere (I absolutely hate driving).

Mr Degradation wrote:

And that gets my goat. That's all. Maybe it's a stupid point of view to express- but as a player who likes to bolster my collection occasionally with these sorts of products, that sort of exploitation feels like the secondary market taking a stab at the playerbase (the people who make a secondary market possible.)

Stores can do whatever they want with their product. This honestly sounds like a mistake by SCG.

This is not a high demand product. My LGS is getting 15 copies of it and had all of one person preorder it. Another LGS near me is selling them below MSRP to try to get rid of them because the demand has been so low. Everyone already has most of these decks and commander is a format where duplicates are useless.

Three of the four decks can still be had at close to MSRP sealed. Now that they've been reprinted, that price will lower. In two weeks this won't be worth MSRP because the life counters are now going to flood the market as well as reprints will tank single values. You're essentially paying for four foils. They didn't even bother to foil the non face legends or provide oversized cards.

If their plan is to hold onto them for five years when the value MIGHT increase, they can do that without having to list that they have 50 copies for sale. More likely they're just being greedy and using their brand to make a little extra profit hoping people won't just look elsewhere to see it can be found far cheaper.